DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 40 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite that the gearcase housing can be steered to further raise the drive assembly out of the water, but this is not presented in conjunction with trimming the motor. The examiner recommends more conclusively linking these steps in the claims.
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: it depends from cancelled claim 1. For the purposes of this action, it will be treated as though it depends from claim 32.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 48 line recites that “the sensor is configured to sense…a rotational position of a gearset of the drive assembly,” however parent claim 47 recited that “the sensor is configured to sense the…a rotational position of an output shaft of the electric motor.” It is unclear if this is intended to be the same sensor (and if so, how it senses the position of two different components), a second sensor, or if claim 48 was intended to depend from claim 46. For the purposes of this action, the claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 46.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 32-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson US 4,432,737 in view of Kiekhaefer US 9,849,955 and Delsman US 2,591,411.
Regarding claim 32, Johansson teaches a stern drive for propelling a marine vessel in a body of water, the stern drive comprising:
a motor (not shown);
a drive assembly 10;
a trim actuator 36 configured to trim the drive assembly about a trim axis (column 1, lines 58-64); and
a universal joint 16 that couples the motor to the drive assembly so operation of the motor causes the drive assembly to generate a propulsive force in water.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Johansson Figure 1
Johansson does not teach that the motor is electric, however it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute an electric motor in place of the internal combustion engine in order to utilize an easier to maintain actuator or reduce air pollution, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Johansson does not teach a controller configured to control the electric motor to rotate the universal joint into a neutral position and control the trim actuator to trim the drive assembly with the universal joint remaining in the neutral position. Kiekhaefer teaches a stern drive for propelling a marine vessel in a body of water, the stern drive comprising:
a motor 100;
a drive assembly 1;
a trim actuator configured to trim the drive assembly about a trim axis; and
a universal joint 72 that couples the motor to the drive assembly so operation of the motor causes the drive assembly to generate a propulsive force in water; and
a controller configured to automatically control operation of stern drive systems (column 4, lines 7-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a controller configured to automatically control the drive systems as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to enable a faster response and alleviate some operator duties.
Neither Johansson nor Kiekhaefer teach that the controller is configured to rotate the universal joint into a neutral position and control the trim actuator to trim the drive assembly with the universal joint remaining in the neutral position. Delsman teaches a motor (connected via 23) which drives a rotating shaft output through a universal joint 28, wherein the universal joint is indexed to a neutral position before the output is pivoted/trimmed up (column 3, lines 64-74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson and Kiekhaefer aligning the universal joint to a neutral position before tilting as taught by Delsman in order to minimize the wear and burden on the universal joint. Note that as taught, these actions would be performed by the controller.
Regarding claim 33, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. Johansson also teaches that rotating the universal joint 16 into the neutral position facilitates trimming of at least a majority of the drive assembly out of the body of water (column 1, lines 58-61). In an alternative interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the actuators and pivot axis such that a majority of the drive assembly can be raised out of the water in order to enable the system to be raised out of the way of obstacles or for easier access from within the vessel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 34, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. Johansson also teaches that the universal joint 16 is pivotable about a pivot axis, and wherein in the neutral position the pivot axis is parallel to the trim axis. Delsman also teaches that in the neutral position the pivot axis is parallel to the trim axis (column 3, lines 64-74).
Regarding claim 35, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. Johansson also teaches that the universal joint 16 is pivotable about two separate pivot axes, and wherein in the neutral position the two separate pivot axes are parallel to the trim axis. Delsman also teaches that in the neutral position the pivot axis is parallel to the trim axis (column 3, lines 64-74), which as taught applies to both pivot axes.
Regarding claim 36, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. As taught, the controller is configured to control the trim actuator to trim the drive assembly about the trim axis while the universal joint remains in the neutral position based on an operational state of the stern drive. In this case, the operational state can be considered the drive being powered on, and the trim being requested, both of which must occur for the operation to take place.
Regarding claim 37, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 36. As taught, the operational state includes an on/off state of the stern drive, because the stern drive must be on to operate.
Regarding claim 38, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 36. Kiekhaefer also teaches that the stern drive comprises a user input device (“a rocker switch controllable by a watercraft operator” column 4, lines 43-47), and as taught the operational state includes a request to trim the drive assembly that is made to the controller via the user input device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a user input to control the trim actuator as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to give operators a simple, tactile means to control the trim actuators.
Regarding claim 39, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. Johansson also teaches that the drive assembly includes a gearcase housing 26 configured to support a propulsor 34 for generating the propulsive force, and a driveshaft housing 22 containing a driveshaft 24 that couples the universal joint 16 to the propulsor, wherein the gearcase is steerable relative to the driveshaft housing (abstract).
Regarding claim 40, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 39. Johansson also teaches a steering actuator 42 configured to steer the gearcase housing 26 relative to the driveshaft housing 22, wherein (as taught) the controller is further configured to control the steering actuator to steer the gearcase housing relative to the driveshaft housing to further raise the drive assembly relative to the water.
Regarding claim 41, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 40. Johansson does not explicitly teach that steering the gearcase housing 26 relative to the driveshaft housing 22 raises the drive assembly completely out of the water, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the actuators and pivot axis such that the entirety of the drive assembly can be raised out of the water in order to enable the system to be raised out of the way of obstacles or for easier access from within the vessel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 42, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 40. As taught, based on an operational state of the stern drive, the controller is configured to control the trim actuator to trim the drive assembly about the trim axis while the universal joint remains in the neutral position and to control the steering actuator to steer the gearcase housing relative to the driveshaft housing to further raise the drive assembly relative to the water. In this case, the operational state can be considered the drive being powered on, and the trim and steering being requested, both of which must occur for the operation to take place.
Regarding claim 43, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 42. As taught, the operational state includes an on/off state of the stern drive, because the stern drive must be on to operate.
Regarding claim 44, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 42. Kiekhaefer also teaches that the stern drive comprises a user input device (“a rocker switch controllable by a watercraft operator” column 4, lines 43-47), and as taught the operational state includes a request to trim the drive assembly that is made to the controller via the user input device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a user input to control the trim actuator as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to give operators a simple, tactile means to control the trim actuators.
Regarding claim 45, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. Johansson also teaches that:
the universal joint 16 includes an input member rotatably engaged with the motor, an output member rotatably engaged with a driveshaft 24 of the drive assembly, and a body that rotatably couples the input member to the output member,
wherein the input member includes input arms pivotably coupled to the body along a first input pivot axis and along a second input pivot axis perpendicular to the first input pivot axis,
wherein the output member includes output arms pivotably coupled to the body along a first output pivot axis and along a second output pivot axis perpendicular to the first output pivot axis, and
wherein in the neutral position the first input pivot axis and the first output pivot axis are parallel to the trim axis (see Johansson figure 1).
Regarding claim 46, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. Johansson does not teach a sensor configured to sense an existing rotational position of the universal joint, wherein the controller is configured to rotate the universal joint into the neutral position based upon the existing rotational position. Kiekhaefer teaches that sensors are used to detect the position of stern drive components, and the controller is configured to actuate said components base on the sensed position (column 4, lines 7-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a controller configured to automatically control the drive systems based on the sensed position of components as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to automate system processes while ensuring components are in the desired locations. Note that as applied to Johansson, the position of the U-joint would be sensed.
Regarding claim 47, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 46. Johansson does not teach that the sensor is configured to sense the rotational position of the universal joint by sensing a rotational position of an output shaft of the motor. Kiekhaefer teaches that sensors are used to detect the position of stern drive components by measuring the position of their driver, and the controller is configured to actuate said components base on the sensed position (the blade pitch can be determined by sensing the position of the piston of the blade pitch actuator, column 4, lines 7-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a controller configured to automatically control the drive systems based on the sensed position of drivers of components as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to automate system processes while ensuring components are in the desired locations. Note that as applied to Johansson, the position of the U-joint would be sensed based on its driver, the motor.
Regarding claim 48, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 47. Johansson does not teach that the sensor is configured to sense the rotational position of the universal joint by sensing a rotational position of a gearset of the drive assembly. Kiekhaefer teaches that sensors are used to detect the position of stern drive components by measuring the position of attached components, and the controller is configured to actuate said components base on the sensed position (the blade pitch can be determined by sensing the position of the piston of the blade pitch actuator, column 4, lines 7-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a controller configured to automatically control the drive systems based on the sensed position of connected components as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to automate system processes while ensuring components are in the desired locations. Note that as applied to Johansson, the position of the U-joint would be sensed based on its driver, the motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to sense the position based on the gearset in order to locate the sensor in a more available and/or accessible portion, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts (sensing downstream vs. upstream) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 49, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. Please also note that it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Regarding claim 50, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 49. Johansson does not teach sensing an existing rotational position of the universal joint and rotating the universal joint into the neutral position based upon the existing rotational position. Kiekhaefer teaches that sensors are used to detect the position of stern drive components, and the controller is configured to actuate said components base on the sensed position (column 4, lines 7-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stern drive of Johansson with a controller configured to automatically control the drive systems based on the sensed position of components as taught by Kiekhaefer in order to automate system processes while ensuring components are in the desired locations. Note that as applied to Johansson, the position of the U-joint would be sensed. As modified, the combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 51, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 49. As taught, the universal joint is automatically rotated into the neutral position based upon an operational characteristic of the stern drive. In this case, the operational state can be considered the drive being powered on, and the trim being requested, both of which must occur for the operation to take place.
Regarding claim 52, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 40. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. Please also note that it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claims 33 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson US 4,432,737 in view of Kiekhaefer US 9,849,955, Delsman US 2,591,411 and Gifford US 5,279,509.
Regarding claim 33, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 32. In an alternative interpretation, Johansson does not teach that rotating the universal joint 16 into the neutral position facilitates trimming of at least a majority of the drive assembly out of the body of water. Gifford teaches a trimmable drive system configured to facilitate trimming of the drive assembly an amount sufficient to raise at least a majority of the drive assembly out of the body of water 44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Johansson by enabling it to be raised out of the water as taught by Gifford in order to enable the system to be raised out of the way of obstacles or for easier access from within the vessel.
Regarding claim 41, Johansson, Kiekhaefer and Delsman teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 40. Johansson does not explicitly teach that steering the gearcase housing 26 relative to the driveshaft housing 22 raises the drive assembly completely out of the water. Gifford teaches a trimmable drive system configured to facilitate trimming of the drive assembly completely out of the water 44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Johansson by enabling it to be raised out of the water as taught by Gifford in order to enable the system to be raised out of the way of obstacles or for easier access from within the vessel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights